WHAT ARE THE CRITIQUE OF MODERNIZATION THEORY

The origin and emergence of modernisation theory could be traceable to the 1950s and 1960s, as the demise
of European colonialism produced a vast number of independent nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Western Social Scientists began to study Third World countries’ politics and economics intensely. From the
study came the modernisation theory. The theory which emerged in the 20th century gained popularity in the
U.S.A in 1960s
The emergence of the modernisation theory is a product of three (3) historical events in the post-World War
II era. These events are:
i. the emergence and rise of the United States of America as a global power after the Second World
War
ii. the spread of communism from the defunct USSR, Korea and China to the new nations emerging
from colonial domination
iii. the disintegration of European colonial empires in Africa, Asia and South America.
Modernisation generally implies a process of change towards those types of social, economic and political
system which had developed in Western Europe and North America from the 17th Century and had then
spread to other European countries in the 19th and 20th centuries in South America, Asia and African
Continents. Modernisation represents a change in values, behaviour or attitude of a society towards the
direction of developed societies. Modernisation is multidisciplinary in structure and content. At the level of
sociology, it maintains that change and transition from traditionalism to modernity is gradual and achieved
through structural differentiation as seen in the works of Talcott Parsons, Neil Smelser, etc. At the level of
economics, its emphasis is on the increase in production and capital investments. This is indicated in the works
of (W.W. Rostow’s Stages of Economic Growth: A Non Communist Manifesto published in 1960. At the
level of Political Science, it emphasises, the need to enhance the capacity of the political system as is reflected
in the works of Gabriel Almond, James Coleman, Samuel Huntington. This is indicated in the theory of
political development where some of the scholars are primarily concerned with the absence or weakness of
political culture and institutions as reasons for Third World backwardness. While there are variations and
disagreement among modernisation scholars, they generally share on a number of underlying postulations
which are:
i. Within the modernisation theoretical prism, the Third World countries (TWCs) can never
developed because their traditional values, norms, behaviours and institutions are antithetical to
development
ii. The theory believes that the yardstick and standards of development of the TWCs are developed
countries of America and Europe
iii. Modernisation theory argued that the TWCs, would and should follow a path of political and
economic modernisation paralleled to the one first travelled by the Advanced Western nations. To
achieve, they insisted that TWCs had to acquire modern cultural values and create modern political
and economic institutions.
 iv. They see development as internally induced due to atavistic and incompatible traditions and
institutions.
v. Finally, transforming the traditional cultures was seen as the first step in the modernisation process.
A Major proponent of the economic aspect of the school is W.W. Rostow who popularised the
theory in his work: Stages of Growth: A Non Communist Manifesto published in 1960. According
to Rostow, growth and development are historically linear process discernible into five (5) stages
through which all TWCs must pass through to develop.
The stages are:
(i) traditional societies
(ii) pre-condition to take-off
(iii) take off
iv) drive to maturity
(v) the age of high mass consumption.
The modernisation theory has been criticised on certain ground. To start with, Offiong (1980:49), The
European American scholars do not explain Africa’s underdevelopment because they all belong to the
mainstream of European- American sociology which has carefully avoided the issue of dependency and
colonial imperialism critical factors in Africa or Third World countries’ development.
In other words, Offiong (1980:50) added that: Development far from being an original or natural condition of
the poor societies is a condition imposed by the international expansion of capitalism and its inalienable
partner, imperialism.
Modernisation is also criticised for its pro-western bias by neo-classical Marxist and dependency
theorists among others, advancing that traditional societies were often destroyed without gaining
promised advantages leading to the replacement of traditional poverty by a more modern forms of
misery.
Modernisation theory was criticised to be essentially ahistorical. The diverse experience of the countries
of the TWCs was aggregated in terms of a notion of traditional society and these countries failed to exhibit
the traits of modern societies. The model of the modern was the model of the U.SA. In this way, the historical
experience of the countries of the TW was both denied and assimilated to the historical experience of the
developed West.
Modernisation is also accused of being unidirectional in its assumption of change and development. That
is- for TWCs to develop there is just one path to follow, the path of America. Critics asked why it is necessary
for the TWCs to follow this path to development.
Modernisations seem to have ignored the fact that TWCs have the option to select an alternative path
to development as South Korea, Taiwan and other Asian countries. This shows that the TWCs have
alternative path to development outside the path of Europe and America.
They are also Eurocentric and racist in outlook. For instance, nearly all the modernisation scholars were
either Americans or Europeans. They were born and raised in the western tradition. As such, they believe that
their cultural values are natural, God ordained and superior to every other.
IMPERIALISM
Imperialism is the highest of capitalism. In other words, capitalism transcended into imperialism. Babatola et
al (2012) describes imperialism as a political and economic ideology of Western Europe in the 19th and 20th
centuries employed to justify the economic and political activities of the western nations across their borders.
Thus, the concept of imperialism is closely related to the concepts of capitalism and colonialism. In fact it can
be said to be an off shoot of these concepts. The industrial revolution which heralded the capitalist economic
system gave rise to increased production of goods, the replacement of humans with machines in the production
process and the need for more raw materials, which incidentally engendered imperialism (Hussain, 2004;
Salami 2009).
i. Concentration of production and capital. Here, there is high concentration and centralisation of
production and capital to a high stage to the extent that it has produced monopolies which play the decisive
role in the economy of the world.
ii. The fusion/merging of banking capital and industrial capital. And the creation, on the basis of this
financial capital to form financial oligarchy. While there is room for different interruptions of the
relationship between industry and the banks, and for discussions about where control really lies-this can
only be settled by empirical enquiry-dominant role of a recognisable financial oligarchy can hardly be
questioned.
iii.The export of capital. This is distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional
importance and dominance. Here again, the role of export of capital from the U.S.A in particular has been
fundamental importance in the development of capitalism in recent decades.
iv. The formation of international capitalist monopolies. Which shared the world economy among the
strong economic power of the world bringing about cartels, syndicates, etc.
v. Territorial division of the world. This was completed by the creased 8capitalist power on a global scale.
The climax of this was the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, where the territorial division of the world among
the major capitalist powers was completed.
All these features have remained valid today as they were 100 years ago. The major feature of the last
quarter of the 19th century was the growth and consolidation of transnational corporations whose roots lie
in Europe and America. It was the intense competition for access to and controls over sources of raw
materials, sources of markets for finished goods and cheap labour that led to the formal colonisation of
most countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East often referred to as the third world
countries.
DEPENDENCY THEORY
The dependency theory was originally propounded by Paul Barran (1967) and then popularised by Andre
Gunder Frank (l967), Theotonio Dos Santos (l970), Samin Amin (1972), Walter Rodney (1972), Claude Ake
(1981) among several others. The Dependency Theory incorporates a variety of perspectives; each attempting
to isolate the factors that can be held accountable for the underdevelopment of the Third World Countries
(TWCs). To Jhingan (2007) there is a plurality of dependency views; different meanings are accorded the
concept of dependence, and different analysis are offered to explain underdevelopment as a result of the
interplay between internal and external structures in developing nations. Dependency theorists are, therefore,
often classified as Marxists, neo- Marxists and structuralists. Tadoro (1994) classifies them as Neo- colonial
Dependence Model, the False Paradigm Model and Dualistic Development Thesis. Notwithstanding the
varying perspectives, there appears to be a consensus about the main thrust of the postulations of the theory.
The Basic Postulations of the Dependency School
The main argument is that the cause of the underdevelopment of the TWCs can be located within the dynamic
and contradictory growth of the global capitalist system. That this underdevelopment has not stemmed from
some original state of affairs, as claimed by Western modernisation theorists, but rather from the same
historical process by which the now developed capitalist countries of Europe and America became developed.
Consequently, the whole world has now become divided into two ˜sets of countries: the developed countries
(DCs) of Europe, North America and Japan and the less developed countries (LDCs) which are mostly found
in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The former are also referred to as the Centre while the latter are called the
Periphery. Frank (1976) calls the DCs as Metropolis and the LDCs, Satellite countries.
The basic arguments of the dependency school are:
1. The dependency scholars rejected the claim that the TWCs could follows the same path to development
as Western nations had because the advanced industrialised nations changed the landscape for those that
followed them. When Britain became the world’s first industrial power, it faced no external economic
competition; today; however, newly industrialising countries must compete against such well-established
industrialised giants as the U.S, Japan, Germany, etc. As Dos Santos added: TWC will have to borrow
from financial capital and purchase advanced technology from the developed countries, thereby making
them dependent on external economic forces beyond their control and weakening their development.
2. They also argue that while modernisation scholars view western influence in the TWCs as beneficial,
because it spreads modern values and institutions, dependency theorists maintain that Western colonialism
and economic imperialism themselves initially turned Africa, Asia and Latin America into sources of
cheap labour, food and raw materials for the colonial powers.
3. Underdevelopment and dependency is not the TWCs’ fault but rather the result of foreign domination and
exploitation. Hence, TWCs’ backwardness is due to exploitative and unequal relationships that exist
between the TWCs and the developed countries. Consequently, the underdevelopment of the TWCs is as
a result of the dependence on the developed countries who exploit them and their resources for selfish
development of the developed countries.
4. They recommend that if these unequal and exploitative relationship continue, TWCs will remain backward
except they severe the link either by delinking or breaking away the relationship with the advanced
countries.
Critique of the Dependency Theory
As Rodney (1972) contends, under colonialism, the things that developed were dependency and
underdevelopment. The central claim of the dependency theory was that the circumstances of the Third World
countries were to a large extent shaped by the global structures within which they found themselves in
particular, the dominance of the west. However, before looking at the critiques of the dependency theory, it is
necessary to give a summary of the theoretical explanations which the proponents share together:
i. The importance of considering both the historical experience of peripheral (Third World countries)
and the places of their involvement within wider encompassing systems
ii. The necessity of identifying specific political, economic and cultural linkages of centres and
peripheries;
iii. The requirement of active State involvement in the pursuit of development.
EXPLAIN KEY WAYS OF LIBERAL REFORMIST IN ENHANCING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
IN LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Liberal reformists advocate for economic policies aimed at promoting free markets, reducing state
intervention, and encouraging private enterprise. Their strategies often focus on creating an environment
conducive to economic growth and development. Here are the key ways they aim to enhance economic
conditions in less developed countries (LDCs):
MARKET LIBERALIZATION
Trade Liberalization: Reducing tariffs and trade barriers to promote exports and imports, facilitating access
to global markets.
Deregulation: Removing excessive regulations that hinder business operations and market entry, promoting
competition.
INVESTMENT IN HUMAN CAPITAL
Education and Training: Promoting access to quality education and vocational training to enhance
workforce skills, fostering a more adaptable labor force.
Health Initiatives: Improving healthcare systems to ensure a healthier population, which is vital for
productivity and economic growth.
PROMOTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
Encouraging Entrepreneurship: Creating an enabling environment for small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) through access to finance, mentorship, and business development services.
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Facilitating collaboration between the government and private sector to
improve infrastructure and service delivery.
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
Investment in Infrastructure: Enhancing transportation, energy, and communication infrastructure to
facilitate trade and improve productivity.
Access to Technology: Promoting digital infrastructure to increase access to information and markets,
fostering innovation.
FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY REFORMS
Tax Reforms: Simplifying tax structures to improve revenue generation while promoting fairness and
efficiency.
Monetary Policy Stability: Ensuring stable inflation rates and currency value to foster confidence in the
economy.
STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONS
Rule of Law and Governance: Promoting transparent legal systems and reducing corruption to create a stable
business environment.
Regulatory Frameworks: Establishing clear and fair regulations that protect property rights and ensure
competition.
Social Safety Nets
Targeted Social Programs: Implementing programs that support the most vulnerable populations to mitigate
the impact of economic reforms.
Microfinance Initiatives: Providing financial services to underserved populations to promote
entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency.
ENGAGEMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Partnerships with NGOs and International Bodies: Collaborating with organizations like the World Bank
and IMF to access funding, expertise, and technical assistance.
Adopting Best Practices: Learning from successful reform models in other countries and adapting them to
local contexts.
Sustainability and Inclusive Growth
Promoting Sustainable Practices: Encouraging environmentally sustainable practices in agriculture and
industry to ensure long-term viability.
Inclusive Economic Policies: Ensuring that economic growth benefits all segments of society, reducing
inequality and fostering social cohesion.
CONCLUSION
Liberal reformists believe that by implementing these strategies, less developed countries can create a
conducive environment for economic growth, attract foreign investment, and improve living standards. The
focus on market-driven approaches, combined with social policies that address inequality, aims to build a
more resilient and prosperous economy.
WORLD SYSTEM THEORY
Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein, born on 28 September 1930, is best known for having developed world-
systems analysis, a macrohistorical approach to understanding capitalism. He first became interested in world
affairs, particularly the anticolonial movement in India, as a teenager living in New York City.
Immanuel Wallerstein introduces his theory and argues that industrial development is a world-system, and in
the world-system not every country industrialises or experience industrial development. According to him, a
world-system is defined as any relatively large social system having three principal characteristics:
 A high degree of autonomy. Meaning it does not depend on anything outside of itself for existence.
 An extensive division of labour, hence high degree of economic specialization.
 A multiplicity of cultures, that is the existence of different groups (Sanderson, 1988:125).
Wallerstein stated that the world-system is an economic system and is composed of three basic components
or economic units –
 The core: These are countries that dominate the capitalist world economy and usurp the bulk of the surplus
produced (Sanderson, 1988). Represented by mainly Europe and America and constitute the West.
 Semi periphery: The segment of the economy that operates between the core and the periphery. Those
countries in this segment according to Sanderson are both exploiters and itself being exploited. Meaning it is
an exploiter of the periphery and in turn it is exploited by the core. Some Asian and Latin American countries
fall into this space.
 Periphery: The poor countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia fall into this segment. These are basically
the countries and regions that export raw materials to the semi-periphery, who then make the products that the
Core consumes.
According to this theory, in the world system, countries only industrialise if it is in the interest of the core and
generally, it is not often in the interests of the core for every country to industrialise and grow economically
(Dragos, 2020). The world-system theory advances that over time countries of the core, that is the west have
experienced industrial development because this is secured at the detriment of both the semiperiphery and of
course essentially the periphery. The process of industrialisation is a process of usurpation, plundering and
expropriation. Many of the periphery countries have served as sources of raw materials for the core, through
which they advanced and became industrialised. Immensely, this industrial development experienced by the
core countries means retrogression for others, hence they cannot become industrialised (Onyishi & Amoke,
(2018). This theory further states that the semi periphery countries over time have begun to experience
industrial development because the core or west wants that to happen. Reason being these countries are centres
of manufacturing for the core countries. Dragos (2020) posits that in the last half century, much of Asia and
Latin American countries have moved up industrially because this has benefitted the core. The core countries
use these Asian countries as centres to manufacture cheap and affordable goods due to cheap labour.
Summary
The world systems theory of Immanuel Wallerstein clearly shows that economic systems are dominated by
countries of the core, who advance industrially by impoverishing other countries of the semi periphery and
periphery. The argument, generally is that the process of industrialisation is a process of usurpation, plundering
and expropriation. Many of the periphery countries have served as sources of raw materials for the core,
through which they advanced and became industrialised. In the world system, not every country can become
industrialised except it is in the interests and benefit of the core.